Mumbai Court August 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shashikant Piraji Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
1. The appellant and one Smruti Achrekar were prosecuted on the allegation that they had committed offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(1)2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay, by his judgment and order dated 27th February 2001, found the appellant (accused no.1 in the said case) guilty of the aforesaid offences, and sentenced him to suffer RI for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each of the said two counts. The learned Special Judge, however, held the said Smt.Achrekar (accused no.2) not guilty and acquitted her. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order convicting and sentencing him, and has therefore approached this Court by filing the present Appeal. 2. I have heard Mr.S.V. Kotwal, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record of the case. I have carefully consi...
M/s. Vinayak Ashish Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/s. Essar E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 02/05/2013 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court for Greater Bombay by which order the learned Judge has decided the preliminary issues relating to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and limitation, it is held that the City Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in question and has accordingly directed return of the plaint for being presented to the Court having jurisdiction and has directed the parties to remain present in the Co-operative Court at Bombay on 28/06/2013, it is further held that the suit as filed is within limitation. 3. The facts giving rise to the above Petition in brief can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is a Co-operative Housing Society. The Plot of land on which the building of the Society has been constructed is out ...
Sanjay Sadashiv Jadhav and Others Vs. The Joint Director, Higher Educa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners in all these petitions were the employees of Respondent No.2/ Institution and were working with Respondent No.3/College till their termination dated 17.04.2012 communicated to them on 21.04.2012. The Petitioners are identically placed and the Respondents in all these petitions are the same. 3 The Petitioners are said to have been terminated by the order dated 17.04.2012 which was communicated to them by the Institution on 21.04.2012. These Petitioners approached the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4305/2012, 4307/2012 and 6672/2012. By order dated 30.10.2012, this Court disposed of the petitions by observing that the Petitioners have an alternate statutory remedy of approaching the University and College Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as Tribunal?). All the issues were kept open. 4. The Petitioners filed their Appeals before the Tribun...
Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde Vs. Dnyansagar Bahnuuddeshiya Shaikshanik Sansth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The School Tribunal partly allowed the Appeal No. 67 of 1999 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.E.P.S Act" and "the said Rules"), challenging his termination from service with effect from 03.07.1999. The School Tribunal has declared the termination to be illegal and void and it is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to compensation of the salary of six month including pay and allowances, if any, against loss of employment and the Management was directed to pay six months full salary at the rate prevailing on the date of decision of the appeal on the post of Physical Education Teacher within a period of 60 days. 2. The employee is before this Court and claims modification of the order passed by the School Tribunal, seeking reinstatement in service with full backwages. None of the respondents have preferred any appeal c...
Devendra Manguesh Naik Vs. Police Inspector, Mapusa Town Police Statio ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral Judgment: (K.L. Wadane, J.) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside F.I.R. No.82/1998 registered with the respondent. 2. On 24.3.1998, a complaint is filed by one Mr. A.G. Haldankar in respect of an accident at Peddem, Maupsa at Mapusa Police Station. The petitioner was called at Mapusa Police Station and informed about the complaint wherein the petitioner was purportedly implicated. 3. The petitioner visited Mapusa Police Station and he was informed that necessary intimation was given to him of further proceedings in respect of the said complaint. 4. In the year 2011, the petitioner applied for Batch of Heavy Vehicle and Taxi. The said application was forwarded to Mapusa Police Station for verification and clearance by the Police. 5. Upon inquiry, the petitioner was informed that the record reveals that a case was pending against him. The petitioner was shocked to note that FIR bearing No.82/1998 was registered dated 24.3.1998 a...
Samsun Donald Dokubo Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
1. Heard the rival submissions on this appeal, preferred by the appellant challenging his conviction in the matter of offences punishable under section 8(c) read with section 21(b) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). 2. Presently, the appellant is in jail and already has undergone imprisonment for more than one year and six months, out of the total imprisonment of two years awarded against him. 3. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23rd March 2015 passed by Special Judge under the NDPS Act. The appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer S.I. for three months. 4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, the police officer, P.W.4 then attached to Anti Narcotic Cell of Bandra received secret information in the afternoon of 6th February 2014 regarding one named African national coming at a particular place in front o...
George Peter Mendes and Another Vs. Robert Mendes (now deceased), thro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondents. 2. Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in deciding the matter, without hearing oral arguments and on the basis of written arguments, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Heard finally with consent. 4. The brief facts are that the appellants, who are the plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 7/2005/D/F, for possession of a shop. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and order dated 31.08.2012. This was challenged by the appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No. 145/2012, before the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 (Fast Track Court), North Goa, Panaji. It appears that the appellants had filed an application (Exhibit-9), under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C., for short), for production of certain documents at the appellate stage. That application was filed on 05.10.2013. The first A...
Kusum Arunkumar Biswas and Others Vs. Sunchan Securities Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
1. The applicants have taken out these Chamber Summonses for raising an attachment over the premises to which they claim title. The applicants claimed to have purchased the attached premises from one VRG Securities P. Ltd. (VRG) under the registered deed of transfer dated 5th May, 2011. The applicants claim that they have no concerned with the award debtor. 2. The applicants have produced the share certificate of the society in which the attached flat is situate. The share certificate shows the transfer in favour of the applicants which is in favour of VRG from one Kanchan Sunil Mansinghani (Kanchan) who was one of the directors of the award debtor company. 3. Hence the award creditor would claim that the attached flat actually belonged to the award debtor and was shown to be in the name of its director. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the award creditor that even in interim proceeding in the arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 an injunction ord...
Namdeo Kashiram Mukane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th July 2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mangaon in Sessions Case No15/2008, convicting the appellant who was the sole accused in the said case, of offences punishable under section 376 of the IPC, and section 397 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer RI for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer SI for 1(one) year with respect to the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC and to suffer RI for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to suffer SI for 3(three) months with respect to the offence punishable under section 397 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has filed the present Appeal. 2. I have heard Mr.Aniket Vagal, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr.D.P. Adsule, learned APP for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant ...
Ramchandra Shankar Joshi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
Naresh Patil, J. 1. The petitioners seek direction to the respondents to forthwith release the land bearing Gat No.370, Hissa No.1 situated at taluka-Pen, district-Raigad from reservation No.7 (Garden). 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are owners of the land situated within the limits of the Pen Municipal Council. The said land admeasures 0-42-07 + 0040 R. In the development plan, which came into force on 3rd March 1989, the said land was reserved by the municipal council for the purpose of garden as reservation No.7. The petitioners contend that on 2nd February 2009, a notice was issued under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Act of 1966? for short). It is stated that the said notice was received by respondent No.3. In spite of receipt of notice, no steps were taken by respondent No.2. The petitioners claimed to have issued another notice to respondent No.1 on 11th March 2010 and requested for issuance of notification under sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »